P.-yacchati-, to stop (trans.), hold back, detain with (locative case) ; (A1.) to stop (intrans.), stay, remain ; to keep back, refuse ; (A1.) to fail, be wanting ; to fasten, tie to (locative case), bind up (hair etc.) etc. ; to hold over, extend (śarma-) ; to hold downwards (the hand) ; to bring near, procure, bestow, grant, offer, present (rain, gifts etc.) etc. ; to hold in, keep down, restrain, control, govern, regulate (as breath, the voice, the organs of sense etc.) etc. ; to suppress or conceal (one's nature) ; to destroy, annihilate (opp. tosṛj-) ; to restrict (food etc.; see below) ; to fix upon, settle, determine, establish on ; (in gram.) to lower, pronounce low id est with the anudātta- : Causal-yamayati-, to restrain, curb, check, suppress, restrict
m. any act of voluntary penance or meritorious piety (especially a lesser vow or minor observance dependent on external conditions and not so obligatory as yama-q.v) etc.
f. the fixed order of things, necessity, destiny, fate etc. (sometimes personified as a goddess, niyati- and āyati- being regarded as daughters of meru- and wives of dhātṛ- and vidhātṛ-)
m. injunction, order, command ( niyogātgāt-ind.,or niyogenagena-ind.by order of, in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound'), commission, charge, appointed task or duty, business (especially the appointing a brother or any near kinsman to raise up issue to a deceased husband by marrying his widow) etc.
P. A1.-yunakti-, -yuṅkte-, to bind on, tie or fasten to (locative case) etc. ; (with dhuri-) to tie to the pole of a carriage id est yoke, harness ; (met.) to place in front id est employ in the hardest work (also guru-dhūrṣu-) ; to join, put together (especially the hands in a certain position; seekapota-) Scholiast or Commentator on ; to attach to id est make dependent on (dative case or locative case) ; to enjoin, order, command, coerce, impel, appoint, instal (double accusative), trust or charge with, direct or commission or authorize to (locative casedative case, artham-in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound',or infin.) etc. ; to confer or intrust anything (accusative) upon or to (locative case) ; to place at, put in the way (with locative case) ; to direct towards, fix (mind or eyes upon, with locative case) ; to use, employ : Causal-yojayati-, to harness (horses etc.), put or tie to (locative case) ; to set or lay (a trap or snare etc.) ; to enjoin, urge, impel, coerce, appoint or instal as (double accusative), appoint to (locative case), direct or compel or request or command to (dative caselocative caseaccusative with prati-,or artham-in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound') ; commit or intrust anything (accusative) to (locative case) etc. ; to put in any place or state (locative case) ; to confer or bestow upon (locative case) ; to use, employ (reason etc.) ; to accomplish, perform (a rite) ; to endow or furnish with, cause to partake of (instrumental case)
mfn. appointed, directed, ordered, commissioned, charged, intrusted (locative case; dative case; artham-in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound'; infinitive mood or compound) etc.
P.-yunakti-, to connect with, place or put in (locative case) ; to appoint, employ : Causalyojayati-, to place in or on (locative case) ; to appoint to, intrust with (locative case;or artham-, arthāya-in fine compositi or 'at the end of a compound')
mfn. (fr. Causal) appointed or directed or applied to, destined for, chosen as (with locative case, artham-or arthāya-) etc. (paśu-tve-,destined for a sacrificial victim; adhipati-tve-,appointed to the sovereignty)
A1.-yuṅkte- (rarely P.-yunakti-; see on ), to unyoke, disjoin, loose, detach, separate ; to discharge (an arrow) at (locative case) ; to assign, commit, appoint to, charge or entrust with, destine for (dative caselocative case,or artham-) etc. (with sakhye-,to chose for a friend) ; to apply, use, employ ; to eat : Passive voice-yujyate-, to be unyoked etc. ; to fall to pieces, decay : Causal-yojayati-, to appoint or assign to, commit to (locative case,or arthāya-,or /artham-) etc. ; to entrust anything (accusative) to (locative case) ; to offer or present, anything (accusative) to (dative case) ; to use, employ ; to perform
नियम् 1 P. 1 To restain, curb, check, control, govern; प्रकृत्या नियताः स्वया Bg.7.2; (सुतां) शशाक मेना न नियन्तुमुद्यमात् Ku.5.5; 'could not dissuade her', &c. -2 To suppress, suspend, hold in (as breath, &c.); Ms. 2.192; न कथंचन दुर्योनिः प्रकृतिं स्वां नियच्छति Ms.1.59 'does not suppress or conceal', &c. -3 To offer, give; को नः कुले निवपनानि नियच्छतीति Ś.6.25. -4 To punish, chastise; नियन्तव्यश्च राजभिः Ms.9.213. -5 To regulate or direct in general; लोको नियम्यत इवात्मदशान्तरेषु Ś.4.2. -6 To attain, obtain; तालज्ञश्चाप्रयासेन मोक्षमार्गं नियच्छति Y.3.115; Ms.2.93. -7 To put on, assume. -8 To place upon. -Caus. (नियमयति) 1 To restrain, control, regulate, check, punish; नियमयसि विमार्गप्रस्थितानात्तदण्डः Ś.5.8. -2 To bind, fasten; Śi.7.56; R.5.73. -2 To moderate, lessen, mitigate, relieve; छायाद्रुमैर्नियमितार्कमयूखतापः Ś.4.11; Ku.1.6.
नियमः 1 Restraining, checking. -2 Taming, subduing. -3 Confining, preventing. -4 A restraint, check; वाचि नियमः U.2.2; अधर्मानियमः Ms.8.122. -5 Restriction, limitation; Mb.14.13.11. -6 A rule or precept, law (in general), usage; नायमेकान्ततो नियमः Ś. B. -7 Regularity; कुसुमसुकुमारमूर्तिर्दधती नियमेन तनुतरं मध्यम् Ratn. 1.2. -8 Certainty, ascertainment. -9 An agreement, promise, vow, engagement. -1 Necessity, obligation. -11 Any voluntary or self-imposed religious observance (dependent on external conditions); [The earliest explanation of this expression is the one found in the ŚB. on MS.4.2.24. cf. को$यं नियमः । अनियतस्य नियतता । प्रयोगाङ्गतया सर्वे देशाः प्राप्नुवन्ति, न तु समच्चयेन । यदा समो न तदा विषमः । यदा विषमो न तदा समः । स एष समः प्राप्तश्चाप्राप्तश्च । यदा न प्राप्तः स पक्षो विधिं प्रयोजयति. This is very nicely stated in the Vārttika--'नियमः पाक्षिके सति']; R.1.94; Ki.5.4; (see Malli. on Śi.13.23). -12 Any minor observance or lesser vow, a duty prescribed to be done, but which is not so obligatory as a यम q. v. शौचमिज्या तपो दानं
स्वाध्यायोपस्थनिग्रहः । व्रतमौनोपवासं च स्नानं च नियमा दशा ॥ Atri. -13 Penance, devotion, religious austerities; नियमविघ्न- कारिणी Ś.1; R.15.74. -14 (In Mīm. phil.) A rule or precept which lays down or specifies something which, in the absence of that rule, would be optional; विधिरत्यन्तमप्राप्तौ नियमः पाक्षिके सति. -15 (In Yoga phil.) Restraint of the mind, the second of the 8 principal steps of meditation in Yoga; दशैते नियमाः प्रोक्ता योगशास्त्र- विशारदैः Tantrasāra. -16 (In Rhet.) A poetical commonp lace or convention, as the description of the cuckoo in spring, peacocks in the rains &c. -17 Defining, definition. -18 Keeping down, lowering (as the voice). -19 Keeping secret; मन्त्रस्य नियमं कुर्याः Mb.5. 141.2. -2 Effort (यत्न); यथैते नियमं पौराः कुर्वन्त्यस्मिन्निवर्तने Mb.2.46.2. (नियमेन as a rule, invariably). -Comp. -उपमा a simile which expressly states that something can be compared only with something else. -धर्मः a law prescribing restraints. -निष्ठा rigid observance of prescribed rites. -पत्रम् a written agreement. -विधिः a religious rite, daily ritual; नियमविधिजलानां बर्हिषां चोप- नेत्री Ku.1.6. -स्थ a. observing penance; Ku.5.13. -स्थितिः f. steady observance of religious obligations, asceticism. -हेतुः a regulating cause.
नियन्तृ m. 1 A charioteer, driver; नियन्तरि व्याकुलमुक्त- रज्जुके Śi.12.24. -2 A governor, ruler, master, regulator; न व्यतीयुः प्रजास्तस्य नियन्तुर्नेमिवृत्तयः R.1.17;15.51. -3 A punisher, chastiser. -4 The Supreme Being.
नियतिः f. 1 Restraint, restriction. -2 Destiny, fate, luck, fortune (good or bad); (sometimes personified as a goddess, the sister of Āyati, both being daughters of Meru and wives of Dhātṛi and Vidhātṛi); नियति- बलान्नु Dk.; नियतेर्नियोगात् Śi.4.34; Ki.2.12;4.21. -3 A religious duty or obligation; नियतिः कारणं लोके नियतिः कर्मसाधनम् । नियतिः सर्वभूतानां नियोगोष्बिह कारणम् ॥ Rām.4.25. 4. -4 Self-command, self-restraint.
नियोगः 1 Employment, use, application. -2 An injunction, order, command, direction, commission, charge, appointed task or duty, any business committed to one's care; यः सावज्ञो माधवश्रीनियोगे M.5.8; मनो नियोगक्रिययोत्सुकं मे R.5.11; अथवा नियोगः खल्वीदृशो मन्दभाग्यस्य U.1; आज्ञा- पयतु को नियोगो$नुष्ठीयतामिति Ś.1; त्वमपि स्वनियोगमशून्यं कुरु 'go about your own business', 'do your appointed duty', (frequently occurring in plays, and used as a courteous way of asking servants to withdraw). -3 Fastening or attaching to. -4 Necessity, obligation; तत् सिषेवे नियोगेन स विकल्पपराङ्मुखः R.17.49. -5 Effort, exertion. -6 Certainty, ascertainment. -7 An invariable rule; न चैष नियोगो वृत्तिपक्षे नित्यः समास इति ŚB. on MS.1.6.5. -8 Commission, act; न कर्ता कस्यचित् कश्चिन्नियोगेनापि चेश्वरः Rām. 4.25.5. -9 Right (अधिकार); अलघुनि बहु मेनिरे च ताः स्वं कुलिशभृता विहितं पदे नियोगम् Ki.1.16. -1 A practice prevalent in ancient times which permitted a childless widow to have intercourse with the brother or any near kinsman of her deceased husband to raise up issue to him, the son so born being called क्षेत्रज; cf. Ms.9.59.:-- देवराद्वा सपिण्डाद्वा स्त्रिया सम्यङ् नियुक्तया । प्रजे- प्सिताधिगन्तव्या सन्तानस्य परिक्षये ॥; see 6, 65 also. (Vyāsa begot पाण्डु and धृतराष्ट्र on the widows of विचित्रवीर्य in this way).
नियोजनम् 1 Fastening, attaching. -2 Ordering, prescribing. -3 Urging, impelling. -4 Appointing. -5 Ved. That with which anything is tied. -नी A halter.
नियुक्त p. p. 1 Directed, ordered, instructed, commanded. -2 Authorised, appointed; नियुक्तः क्षत्रियो द्रव्ये खड्गं दर्शयते ध्रुवम् H.2.95. -3 Permitted to raise issue; see नियोग (7) below. -4 Attached to. -5 Fastened to. -6 Ascertained. -7 Prompted, incited. -8 Used, employed; नियुक्तौ हव्यकव्ययोः Ms.5.16. -क्तः A functionary, an officer, any one charged with some business. -क्तम् ind. By all means, necessarily.
अनियत a. 1 Uncontrolled, unrestricted. -2 Indefinite, uncertain, not fixed; irregular (forms also); ˚वेलं आहारो$श्यते Ś.2 at irregular hours. -3 Causeless, casual, incidental, occasional; ˚रुदितस्मितम् (वदनकमलकम्) U.4.4; Māl.1.2. -Comp. -अङ्कः an indeterminate digit (in Math.) -आत्मन् a. not self-possessed, whose soul is not properly controlled. -पुंस्का a woman loose in conduct, unchaste. -वृत्ति a. 1 having no regular or fixed employment or application (as a word). -2 having no regular income.
प्रतिनियमः 1 A general rule. -2 A separate allotment; जननमरणकरणानां प्रतिनियमाद्युगपत् प्रवृत्तेश्च Sāṅ. K.18. -3 A strict rule applying only to a particular case.
विनियुज् 7 U. 1 To use, expend. -2 To appoint, employ. -3 To divide, apportion, distribute; प्रत्येकं विनियुक्तात्मा कथं न ज्ञास्यसि प्रभो Ku.2.31. -4 To disconnect, separate. -5 To discharge (an arrow). -Caus. 1 To appoint, employ. -2 To enjoin, order, command; भृत्येषु विनियोजयेत् Ms.7.226. -3 To offer, present, give. -4 To perform, do, dispose of.
विनियुक्त p. p. 1 Separated, loosed, detached. -2 Attached to, appointed. -3 Applied to. -4 Commanded, enjoined. -Comp. -आत्मन् a. one who has his mind fixed on.
m. restraint, limitation; re striction to (lc. or prati with ac.); fixed rule, certainty, absolute necessity (in a particular case); contract, promise; vow; self-imposed (religious) observance, minor (occasional) duty: ab. necessarily, certainly; in. id.; with certain limitations; -yamana, n. restraining, subduing; restriction; -yama-vat, a. prac tising religious observances; -yamya, fp. to be restrained, -subdued; -limited; -re stricted; -y&asharp;na, n. going in, entry; -yâma ka, a. (ikâ) restraining, checking; restricting.
fp. to be restrained or held in check; -guided; -enforced; -yantrí, m. restrainer, ruler; charioteer: -tva, n. faculty of restraining; -yantrana, n. restraining; limitation.
pp. √ yam: -m, ad. cer tainly, assuredly; n. pl. organs of sense (ph.); -kâla, a. lasting for a limited time, temporary; -vasati, a. having his permament abode any where; -vishaya-vartin, a.steadily abiding in his appointed sphere; -vrata, a. faithful to one's vow; -½âtman, a. self-controlled.
m. fastening; appointed duty, function; employment, appointment, commission, business; order, injunction; neces sity, certainty; destiny: in. necessarily, certainly; -krit, a. acting in one's behalf, agent; -samsthita, pp. being in office; -stha, a. being under the orders of (g.); -½artha, m. commission.
n. tying up; cord; injunction, commission; -yogayitavya, cs. fp. to be punished with (in.); to be urged to (lc.); -yogya, fp. to be fastened; -endowed with; -instructed in (in.); -commissioned; -entrusted; m. servant, dependent; -yodhaka, m. pugilist.
pp. √ yug; m. public functionary, official; -yukti, f. appointment, employment (for, -artham); -yú-t, f. be stowal; series; team, steed, esp. of Vâyu: pl. verses, poem; -yuta, pp. √ yu;n. a certain large number, gnly. million; -yuddha, n. fight, esp. with fists.
pp. specially meant for every soul; -purusha, m. similar man, representative; companion; doll; °ree;-or -m, ad. man for man, for each man; for every soul; -pustaka, n. copy of an original manuscript, transcript; -pûgaka, a. honour ing (--°ree; or g.); -pûgana, n. doing honour to (g.); -pûgâ, f. id. (with g. or lc.); -pûgya, fp. to be honoured; -pûrana, n. filling, oc cupation of (g.); being filled with (in.); stoppage, obstruction; -prishthâ, f. each side of a leaf.
pp. bent on vanquishing Bali; -putra, m. son of Bali, pat. of the Asura Bâna; -push- ta, (pp.) m. (fed on the rice-offering), crow; -bhug, a. eating the food-offering;m. crow; -bhrit, a. paying tribute; -bhogana, m. crow; -mát, a. receiving tribute; attended with food oblations.
n. curbing, guiding; -yantri, m. restrainer; -yama, m. exactness; -yoga, m. commission; precept, injunction; -roddhavya, fp. to be confined; -rodha, m. obstruction, suppression;-vâya, m. combination; -vritti, f. return (in aand abhûyah-); -vesa, m. entrance, taking up a position; inclusion (rare); impression (of a mark, --°ree;); combination, arrangement; posi tion (--°ree; a. situated in or on); form, appear ance; dwelling-place; assemblage: -m kri, take up a position in (--°ree;); make room for (--°ree;); -vesana, n. dwelling-place, abode; -vesayitavya, fp. to be inserted; -hita, pp. (√ dhâ) near etc.: -½apâya, a. having destruc tion near at hand, perishable, transient.
is mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana,the Chāndogya Upanisad, and the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, as engaged in discussions on philosophy. The Jaiminīya Brāhmana further reports that his sons divided the property amongst themselves while he was yet alive. He was a Kuru and a prince.
(‘besprinkling’).—The Vedic king was consecrated after his election with an elaborate ritual, which is fully described in the Taittirīya, Pañcavimśa,śatapatha, and Aitareya Brāhmanas, and for which the Mantras are given in the Samhitās. The consecration took place by sprinkling with water (abhisecanīyā āpah).6 Only kings could be consecrated, the people not being worthy of it (anabhisecanīyāh). The sprinkler (abhisektr) is mentioned in the list of victims at the Purusamedha. The Abhiseka is an essential part of the Rājasūya, or sacrifice of royal inauguration, being the second of its component members.
Is an expression which occurs in one passage of the Rigveda,and which Roth was at first inclined to interpret as a proper name. There can, however, be no doubt that it means a cow, not a man, as suggested by Grassmann. The exact reason why a cow should be so described is uncertain. Roth was later inclined to see in it the sense ‘ having pierced ears,’ similar epithets being at a later period known to Pānini (bhinna-karna, chinna-karna). Grassmann’s more obvious rendering, ‘having the sign for (the number) marked on the ear,’ is supported by the similar epithets, ‘ having the mark of a lute on the ear ’ (karkari-karnyah), ‘ having the mark of a sickle on the ear’ (ιdātra-kamyah), ‘ having the mark of a stake on the ear * (sthūnā- kaniycih), ‘ having the ears bored * (
is the designation in the Aitareya Brāhmana1 of a family of the Kaśyapas who were excluded from a sacrifice by Janamejaya, but who took away the conduct of the offering from the Bhūtavīras, whom the king employed. In the Jaiminīya Brāhmana[1] and the Sadvimsa Brāhmana[2] the Asita- mrgas are called 4 sons of the Kaśyapas,’ and one is mentioned as Kusurubindu4 Auddālaki.
Is the patronymic normally referring to Uddālaka, son of Aruna Aupaveśi. Uddālaka is probably also meant by Aruni Yaśasvin, who occurs as a teacher of the Subrahmanyā (a kind of recitation) in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. Arunis are referred to both in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana and in the Kāthaka Samhitā, as well as in the Aitareya Aranyaka.
This is a generic term for a seat of some sort, occurring frequently in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas, but not in the Rigveda. In the Atharvaveda the settle brought for the Vrātya is described at length. It had two feet, lengthwise and cross-pieces, forward and cross-cords, showing that it was made of wood and also cording. It was also covered with a cushion (Ástarana) and a pillow (Upabarhana), had a seat (Asāda) and a support (Upaśraya). Similar seats are described in the Kausītaki Upanisad and the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. The seat for the king at the royal consecration is described in very similar terms in the Aitareya Brāhmana, where the height of the feet is placed at a span, and the lengthwise and cross-pieces are each to be a cubit, while the interwoven part (vivayana) is to be of Muñja grass, and the seat of Udumbara wood. In another passage of the Atharvaveda Lanman seems to take the seat meant as a ‘ long reclining chair.’ There also a cushion (Upadhāna) and coverlet (Upavāsana) are mentioned. The śatapatha Brāhmana repeatedly describes the Ásandī in terms showing that it was an elaborate seat. In one place8 it is said to be made of Khadira wood, perforated (vi-trnnā), and joined with straps (vardhra-yutā) like that of the Bhāratas. At the Sautrāmanī rite (an Indra sacrifice) the seat is of Udumbara wood, is knee-high, and of unlimited width and depth, and is covered with plaited reed-work. The imperial seat10 is to be shoulder-high, of Udumbara wood, and wound all over with cords of Balvaja grass (.Eleusina indica). Elsewhere11 the seat is a span high, a cubit in width and depth, of Udumbara wood, and covered with reed-grass cords, and daubed with clay.
As a kind of literature, is repeatedlymentioned along with Purāna in the later texts of the Vedic period. The earliest reference to both occurs in the late fifteenth book of the Atharvaveda. Itihāsa then appears in the Satapatha Brāhmana, the Jaiminīya, Brhadāranyaka, and Chāndogya Upanisads. In the latter it is expressly declared with Purāna to make up the fifth Veda, while the Sāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra makes the Itihāsa a Veda and the Purāna a Veda. The Itihāsa-veda and the Purāna-veda appear also in the Gopatha Brāhmana, while the śatapatha identifies the Itihāsa as well as the Purāna with the Veda. In one passage Anvākhyāna and Itihāsa are distinguished as different classes of works, but the exact point of distinction is obscure; probably the former was supplementary. The Taittirīya Áranyaka mentions Itihāsas and Purānas in the plural. There is nothing to show in the older literature what dis¬tinction there was, if any, between Itihāsa and Purāna; and the late literature, which has been elaborately examined by Sieg, yields no consistent result. Geldner has conjectured that there existed a single work, the Itihāsa-purāna, a collection. of the old legends of all sorts, heroic, cosmogonic, genealogical; but though a work called Itihāsa, and another called Purāna, were probably known to Patañjali, the inaccuracy of Geldner’s view is proved by the fact that Yāska shows no sign of having known any such work. To him the Itihāsa may be a part of the Mantra literature itself, Aitihāsikas being merely people who interpret the Rigveda by seeing in it legends where others see myths. The fact, however, that the use of the compound form is rare, and that Yāska regularly has Itihāsa, not Itihāsa-purāna, is against the theory of there ever having been one work. The relation of Itihāsa to Akhyāna is also uncertain. Sieg considers that the words Itihāsa and Purāna referred to the great body of mythology, legendary history, and cosmogonic legend available to the Vedic poets, and roughly classed as a fifth Veda, though not definitely and finally fixed. Thus, Anvākhyānas, Anuvyākhyānas, and Vyākhyānas could arise, and separate Ákhyānas could still exist outside the cycle, while an Akhyāna could also be a part of the Itihāsa-purāna. He also suggests that the word Akhyāna has special reference to the form of the narrative. Oldenberg, following Windisch, and followed by Geldner, Sieg, and others, has found in the Akhyāna form a mixture of prose and verse, alternating as the narrative was concerned with the mere accessory parts of the tale, or with the chief points, at which the poetic form was naturally produced to correspond with the stress of the emotion. This theory has been severely criticized by Hertel and von Schroeder. These scholars, in accordance with older suggestions of Max Muller and Levi, see in the so-called Ákhyāna hymns of the Rigveda, in which Oldenberg finds actual specimens of the supposed literary genus, though the prose has been lost, actual remains of ritual dramas. Elsewhere it has been suggested that the hymns in question are merely literary dialogues.
Is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana as the priest who officiated at the horse sacrifice of Janamejaya, although this honour is attributed in
the Aitareya Brāhmana to Tura Kāvaseya. He also appears in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Sruta,and is mentioned in the Vamśa Brāhmana. He cannot be connected in any way with Devāpi, who occurs in the Rigveda
Appears in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa as a king of the Kurus and as maternal uncle of Keśin. His connexion with the Kurus is borne out by the fact that Upamaśravas was son of Kuru- śravaṇa, the names being strikingly similar.
Uddālaka, son of Aruna, is one of the most prominent teachers of the Vedic period. He was a Brāhmana of the Kurupañcālas, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. This statement is confirmed by the fact that he was teacher of Proti Kausurubindi of Kauśāmbī, and that his son Svetaketu is found disputing among the Pañcālas. He was a pupil of Aruna, his father, as well as of Patañcala Kāpya, of Madra, while he was the teacher of the famous Yājñavalkya Vājasaneya and of Kausītaki, although the former is represented elsewhere as having silenced him. He overcame in argument Prācīnayogya śauceya, and apparently also Bhadrasena Ajāta- śatrava, though the text here seems to read the name as Arani. He was a Gautama, and is often alluded to as such. As an authority on questions of ritual and philosophy, he is repeatedly referred to by his patronymic name Aruni in the śatapatha Brāhmana, the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, the Chāndogya Upanisad, and occasionally in the Aitareya, the Kausītaki, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmanas, as well as the Kausītaki Upanisad. In the Maitrāyanī Samhitā he is not mentioned, according to Geldner, but only his father Aruna; his name does not occur, according to Weber, in the Pañca¬vimśa Brāhmana, but in the Kāthaka Samhitā he is, as Aruni, known as a contemporary of Divodāsa Bhaimaseni, and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he is mentioned as serving Vāsistha Caikitāneya. In the Taittirīya tradition he seldom appears. There is an allusion in the Taittirīya Samhitā to Kusurubinda Auddālaki, and according to the Taittirīya Brāhmana, Naciketas was a son of Vājaśravasa Gautama, who is made out to be Uddālaka by Sāyana. But the episode of Naciketas, being somewhat unreal, cannot be regarded as of historical value in proving relationship. Aruna is known to the Taittirīya Samhitā. A real son of Uddālaka was the famous śvetaketu, who is expressly reported by Apastamba to have been in his time an Avara or later authority, a statement of importance for the date of Aruni.
Appears as a teacher, pupil of Kāśyapa, and as bearing the patronymic Kāśyapa in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana and in the Vamśa Brāhmana.The more correct spelling of the name is Rśya-śrñga.
Descendant of Iksvāku,’ is the patronymic borne by Purukutsa in the śatapatha Brāhmana. Another Aiksvāka is Vārsni, a teacher mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. A king Hariścandra Vaidhasa Aiksvāka is known to the Aitareya Brāhmana, and Tryaruna is an Aiksvāka in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.
Is the name of two men mentioned as teachers in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. One is Kaksa Vārakya, pupil of Prosthapada Vārakya, and the other Kaksa Vārāki or Vārakya,\ pupil of Daksa Kātyā- yani Atreya. See also Urukaksa.
(‘ descendant of Kapi') is the patronymic of Sanaka and Navaka, two obviously fictitious persons who served at the Sattra (‘ sacrificial session ’) of the Vibhindukīyas in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana. It is also the patronymic of Patañcala in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. See also Kaiśorya.
Appears as an authority on ritual matters in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, the Taittirīya Samhitā, the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, and the Sadvimśa Brāhmana. He may have been the brother of Svetaketu, as suggested by Weber.
Appears as the name of a seer in one hymn of the Rigveda. Tradition assigns to him or to Viśvaka, son of Krsna (Kārsni), the authorship of the following hymn. The word Krsniya may be a patronymic formed from the same name in two other hymns of the Rigveda, where the Aśvins are said to have restored Visnāpū to Viśvaka Krsniya. In that case Krsna would seem to be the grandfather of Visnāpū. This Krsna may be identical with Krsna Angirasa mentioned in the Kausītaki Brāhmana.
(* descendant of Darbha ’) is a somewhat enigmatic figure. According to the Satapatha Brāh¬mana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana he was a king, sister’s son of Uccaihśravas, according to the latter authority. His people were the Pañcālas, of whom the Keśins must there¬fore have been a branch, and who are said to have been threefold (tvyanīka). A story is told of his having a ritual dispute wτith ṣandika in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā ; this appears in another form in the śatapatha Brāhmana. He was a contemporary of a fellow sage, Keśin Sātyakāmi, according to the Maitrā¬yanī and Taittirīya Samhitās. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana attributes to him a Sāman or chant, and the Kausītaki Brāh¬mana tells how he was taught by a golden bird. In view of the fact that the early literature always refers to Dārbhya as a sage, it seems doubtful whether the commentator is right in thinking that the śatapatha refers to a king and a people, when a sage alone may well be meant, while the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana is of no great authority. The latter work may have assumed that the reference in the Kāthaka Samhitā to the Keśin people signifies kingship, but this is hardly necessary.
Is the name in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana of Vaipaścita Dārdhajayanti Gupta Lauhitya. All the three other names being patronymics show that he was descended from the families of Vipaścit, Drdhajayanta, and Lohita.
(‘Descendant of śakti’) or Gaurīviti, as the name is also spelt, is the Rsi, or Seer, of a hymn of the Rigveda, and is frequently mentioned in the Brāhmanas. According to the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, he was Prastotr at the Sattra, or sacrificial session, celebrated by the Vibhindukīyas and mentioned in that Brāhmana.
Is the name of a pupil of Isa śyāvāśvi according to the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana in a Vamśa (list of teachers).It is also the name, in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, of a teacher who appears to have been needlessly invented to explain the Gausūkta Sāman (chant), which is really the Sāman of Gosūktin.
(‘Descendant of Cekitāna’) is mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. The Caikitā- neyas are also referred to there in connexion with the Sāman which they worshipped. Brahmadatta Caikitāneya is brought into connexion with the Sāman in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, and Vāsistha Caikitāneya is known to the Sadvimśa and Vamśa Brāhmanas. The word is a patronymic, formed from Caikitāna, according to śañkara, but more probably from Cekitāna, a name found in the Epic.
Are variant forms of the name of an ancient Ṛṣi, or seer. The Rigveda represents him as an old decrepit man, to whom the Aśvins restored youth and strength, making him acceptable to his wife, and a husband of maidens. The legend is given in another form in the śatapatha Brāh¬mana, where Cyavana is described as wedding Sukanyā, the daughter of śaryāta. He is there called a Bhrgu or Añgirasa, and is represented as having been rejuvenated by immersion in a pond—the first occurrence of a motive, later very common in Oriental literature. Another legend about Cyavāna is apparently alluded to in an obscure hymn of the Rigveda, where he seems to be opposed to the Paktha prince Tūrvayāna, an Indra worshipper, while Cyavāna seems to have been specially connected with the Aśvins. This explanation of the hymn, suggested by Pischel, is corroborated by the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, which relates that Vidanvant, another son of Bhrgu, supported Cyavana against Indra, who was angry with him for sacrificing to the Aśvins; it is also note¬worthy that the Aśvins appear in the śatapatha Brāhmana as obtaining a share in the sacrifice on the suggestion of Sukanyā. But a reconciliation of Indra and Cyavana must have taken place, because the Aitareya Brāhmana relates the inauguration of śāryāta by Cyavana with the great Indra consecration (aindrena mahābhisekena). In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaça Cyavana is mentioned as a seer of Sāmans or Chants.
King of Videha, plays a considerable part in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, as well as in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana and the Kausītaki Upanisad. He was a contemporary of Yājñavalkya Vāja-saneya, of śvetaketu Aruneya, and of other sages.6 He had become famous for his generosity and his interest in the dis¬cussion of the nature of Brahman, as ultimate basis of reality, in the life-time of Ajātaśatru of Kāśi. It is significant that he maintained a close intercourse with the Brahmins of the Kuru-Pañcālas, such as Yājñavalkya and śvetaketu; for this indicates that the home of the philosophy of the Upanisads was in the Kuru-Pañcāla country rather than in the east. There is a statement in the śatapatha Brāhmana that he became a Brahmin (brahma). This does not, however, signify a change of caste, but merely that in knowledge he became a Brahmin (see Ksatriya). Janaka is occasionally mentioned in later texts: in the Taittirīya Brāhmana he has already become quite mythical; in the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra a sapta-rātra or seven nights’ rite is ascribed to him. It is natural to attempt to date Janaka by his being a con¬temporary of Ajātaśatru, and by identifying the latter with the Ajātasattu of the Pāli texts11: this would make the end of the sixth century B.C. the approximate date of Janaka. But it is very doubtful whether this identification can be supported: Ajātaśatru was king of Kāśi, whereas Ajātasattu was king of Magadha, and his only connexion with Kāśi was through his marriage with the daughter of Pasenadi of Kosala. More¬over, the acceptance of this chronology would be difficult to reconcile with the history of the development of thought; for it would make the rise of Buddhism contemporaneous with the Upanisads, whereas it is reasonably certain that the older Upanisads preceded Buddhism Nor do the Vedic texts know anything of Bimbisāra or Pasenadi, or any of the other princes famed in Buddhist records. The identification of Janaka of Videha and the father of Sītā is less open to objection, but it cannot be proved, and is somewhat doubtful. In the Sūtras Janaka appears as an ancient king who knew of a time when wifely honour was less respected than later.
(‘Famed among men ’) Kāndviya is the name of a pupil of Hrtsvāśaya, mentioned in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, and of Vārakya, a pupil of Jayanta, referred to in the same Brāhmana. Cf. Jānaśruti.
Is the name of several teachers in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana: (a) Jayanta Pārāśarya (‘descendant of Parāśara’) is mentioned as a pupil of Vipaśeit in a Vamśa (list of teachers). (b) Jayanta Vārakya (‘ descendant of Varaka’) appears in the same Vamśa as a pupil of Kubera Vārakya. His grandfather is also mentioned there as a pupil of Kamsa Vārakya. A Jayanta Vārakya, pupil of Suyajña Sāndilya, perhaps identical with the preceding, is found in another Vamśa. (d)Jayanta is a name of Yaśasvin Lauhitya. See also Daksa Jayanta Lauhitya.
‘Descendant of Jabāla,’ is the metronymic of Mahā- śāla and Satyakāma. Jābāla is also mentioned as a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, which refers to the Jābālas4 as well. The Jābāla Grhapatis are spoken of in the Kausītaki Brāhmana.
Does not appear till the Sūtra period. But a Jaiminīya Samhitā of the Sāmaveda is extant, and has been edited and discussed by Caland; and a Jaiminīya Brāhmana, of which a special section is the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana, is known and has formed the subject of several articles by Oertel.
‘Descendant of Jīvala,’ is the patronymic of Pravāhana in the Brhadāranyaka and Chāndogya Upanisads. Jaivali, the king, in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana is the same person.
(‘Descendant of Lohita ’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of śyāmajayanta Lauhitya, according to a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
‘Ten,’ forms the basis of the numerical system of the Vedic Indians, as it does of the Aryan people generally. But it is characteristic of India that there should be found at a very early period long series of names for very high numerals, whereas the Aryan knowledge did not go beyond 1,000. In the Vājasaneyi Samhitā the list is 1 ; 10; 100; 1,000 ; ιο,οοο {ayuta) \ ιοο,οοο (ηiyuta); ι,οοο,οοο(prayuta); 10,000,000 {arbuda); 100,000,000 (ηyarbuda)', 1,000,000,000 (samudra); 10,000,000,000 (madhya); ιοο,οοο,οοο,οοο (aηta); 1,000,000,000,000 {parārdha). In the Kāthaka Samhitā the list is the same, but ηiyuta and prayuta exchange places, and after ηyarbuda a new figure (badva) intervenes, thus increasing samudra to ιο,οοο,οοο,οοο, and so on. The Taittirīya Samhitā has in two places exactly the same list as the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. The Maitrāyanī Samhitā has the list ayuta, prayuta, then ayuta again, arbuda, ηyarbuda, samudra, madhya, aηta, parārdha. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmana has the Vājasaneyi list up to ηyarbuda inclusive, then follow ηikharvaka, badva, aksita, and apparently go = ι,οοο,οοο,οοο,οοο. The Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana list replaces nikharvaka by nikharva, badva by padma, and ends with aksitir vyomāntah. The śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra con¬tinues the series after nyarbuda with nikharvāda, samudra, salila, antya, ananta (=10 billions).But beyond ayuta none of these numbers has any vitality. Badva, indeed, occurs in the Aitareya Brāhmana, but it cannot there have any precise numerical sense j and later on the names of these high numerals are very much confused. An arithmetical progression of some interest is found in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, where occurs a list of sacrificial gifts in which each successive figure doubles the amount of the preceding one. It begins with dvādaśa-mānam hiranyam, * gold to the value of 12 ’ (the unit being uncertain, but probably the Krsnala18), followed by ‘to the value of 24, 48, 96, 192, 384, 768, 1,536, 3072/ then dve astāvimśati-śata-māne, which must mean 2 x 128 X 24 (the last unit being not a single māna, but a number of 24 mānas) = 6,144, then 12,288, 24,576, 49,152, 98,304, 196,608, 393,216. With these large numbers may be compared the minute theoretical subdivision of time found in the śatapatha Brāhmana, where a day is divided into 15 muhūrtas—1 muhūrta =15 ksipras, 1 ksipra =15 etarhis, I etarhi = 15 idānis, 1 idāni =15 prānas. The śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra15 has a decimal division of the day into 15 muhūrtas—• i muhūrta = 10 nimesas, 1 nimesa = 10 dhvamsis. Few fractions are mentioned in Vedic literature. Ardha, pāda, śapha, and kalā denote J, J, TV respectively, but only the first two are common. Trtīya denotes the third part.16 In the Rigveda Indra and Visnu are said to have divided ι,οοο by 3, though how they did so is uncertain. Tri-pād denotes 4 three-fourths.’ There is no clear evidence that the Indians of the Vedic period had any knowledge of numerical figures, though it is perfectly possible.
Occurs in the Rigveda only in the sense of ‘reward’ of exertion (śrama), but later it means ‘inheritance’—that is, a father’s property which is to be divided among his sons either during his lifetime or after his death. The passages all negative the idea that the property 0/ the family was legally family property: it is clear that it was the property of the head of the house, usually the father, and that the other members of the family only had moral claims upon it which the father could ignore, though he might be coerced by his sons if they were physically stronger. Thus Manu is said in the Taittirīya Samhitā to have divided his property among his sons. He omitted Nābhānedistha, whom he afterwards taught how to appease the Añgirases, and to procure cows. This is a significant indication that the property he divided was movable property, rather than land (Urvarā). In the Aitareya Brāhmana the division is said to have been made during Manu’s lifetime by his sons, who left only their aged father to Nābhānedistha. According to the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, again, four sons divided the inheritance while their old father, Abhipratārin, was still alive. It is, of course, possible to regard Dāya as denoting the heritable property of the family, but the developed patria potestas of the father, which was early very marked, as shown by the legend of Sunahśepa, is inconsistent with the view that the sons were legally owners with their father, unless and until they actually insisted on a division of the property. Probably— there is no evidence of any decisive character—land was not divided at first, but no doubt its disposal began to follow the analogy of cattle and other movable property as soon as the available supply of arable land became limited. As for the method of division, it is clear from the Taittirīya Samhitā that the elder son was usually preferred; perhaps this was always the case after death. During the father’s life¬time another might be preferred, as appears from a passage of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Women were excluded from partition or inheritance, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Nirukta. They were, no doubt, supported by their brothers; but if they had none they might be reduced to prostitution. Detailed rules of inheritance appear in the Sūtras.
‘Descendant of Drdhajayanta,’ is the patronymic of Vaipaścita Gupta Lauhitya and of Vaipaścita Drdhajayanta Lauhitya in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana
‘Descendant of Dalbha,’ is a variant of Dārbhya. It is the patronymic of {a) Keśin in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana j (b) Caikitāyana in the Chāndogya Upanisad and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana; (c) Vaka in the Chāndogya Upanisad and the Kāthaka Samhitā.
‘Sky.’ The world as a whole is regarded as divided into the three domains of ‘earth/ ‘air’ or ‘atmosphere,’ and ‘heaven’ or ‘sky’ (div) or alternatively into ‘heaven and earth’ (dyāvā-prthivī), which two are then considered as comprising the universe, the atmosphere being included in the sky. Lightning, wind, and rain belong to the atmosphere, solar and The shape of the earth is compared with a wheel in the Rigveda, and is expressly called * circular ’ (pari-mandala) in the Satapatha Brāhmana. When earth is conjoined with heaven, the two are conceived as great bowls (camvā) turned towards each other. In the Aitareya Aranyaka the two are regarded as halves of an egg. The distance of heaven from the earth is given by the Atharvaveda as a thousand days’ journey for the sun-bird, by the Aitareya Brāhmana as a thousand days’ journey for a horse, while the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana whimsically estimates the distance as equivalent to a thousand cows standing one on the top of the other.According to Zimmer, the Vedic poets conceived the atmosphere to be above the earth in its upper division only, but below it in its lower stratum. The evidence, however, for the latter assumption is quite insufficient. The theory of the Aitareya Brāhmana is that the sun merely reverses its bright side at night, turning its light on the stars and the moon while it retraverses its course to the east; and it has been shown that this is probably the doctrine of the Rigveda also. See also Sūrya and Candramās. For the Vedic knowledge of the planets, see Graha. There is no geographical division of the earth in Vedic literature. The Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana states that the centre of the earth is a span north of the Plaksa Prāsravanā, and that the centre of the sky is the constellation of the seven Esis, the Great Bear. For the quarters, see Diś.
(‘Descendant of Agastya ’) is mentioned in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana as having been Udgātr priest at the Sattra (‘ sacrificial session ’) of the Vibhindukīyas.
(‘Descendant of Indrota’) is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana as a contemporary of Abhipratārin Kāksaseni and as a pupil of Indrota Daivāpa in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. Possibly the same Drti is meant in the compound Drti-Vātavantau, which is found in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana.The former is here said to have continued, after the Mahāvrata was over, the sacrificial session in which both had been engaged, with the result that his descendants prospered more than the Vātavatas.
(‘Descendant of Kaśyapa’) is mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of Rśyaśrñga. In the Vamśa Brāhmana, as śāvasāyana, he is a pupil of his father śavas, who again was a pupil of Kāśyapa.
‘Descendant of Devāpi,’ is the patronymic of Indrota in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. No connexion can be traced with the Devāpi of the Rigveda.
(‘Descendant of Janaśruti’) is mentioned as a priest in the Aitareya Brāhmana, and as Nagarin Jānaśruteya Kāndviya in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana (iii. 40, 2).
Is the name of a teacher in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.1 Presumably he is identical with Nāka Maudgalya (‘descendant of Mudgala’), who is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana,2 the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad,3 and the Taittirīya Upanisad.[1]
Occurs once in the Rigveda denoting a female ‘ dancer.’ In another passage Nrti is found coupled with hāsa, ‘laughter,’ in the description of the funeral ritual; but though it is clear that a joyful celebration is meant (like the Irish ‘ wake ’ or the old-fashioned feasting in Scotland after a funeral), it is difficult to be certain that actual dancing is here meant. Dancing is, however, often referred to in the Rigveda and later. Nrtta- gīta, ‘ dance and song,’ are mentioned in the Jaiminīya Brāhmana as found in the sixth world. See also Sailūsa.
(‘Descendant of Prajāpati ’) is credited by the Anukramanī (Index) with the authorship of a hymn of the Rigveda in which Patañga means the ‘sun-bird.’ He is also mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana.
Under these words denoting primarily, as the evidence collected in the St. Petersburg Dictionary shows, ‘ lord ’ and ‘ lady,’ and so * husband ’ and * wife,’ it is convenient to consider the marital relations of the Vedic community. Child Marriage.—Marriage in the early Vedic texts appears essentially as a union of two persons of full development. This is shown by the numerous references to unmarried girls who grow old in the house of their fathers (amā-jur), and who adorn themselves in desire of marriage, as well as to the paraphernalia of spells and potions used in the Atharvavedic tradition to compel the love of man or woman respectively, while even the Rigveda itself seems to present us with a spell by which a lover seeks to send all the household to sleep when he visits his beloved. Child wives first occur regularly in the Sūtra period, though it is still uncertain to what extent the rule of marriage before puberty there obtained. The marriage ritual also quite clearly presumes that the marriage is a real and not a nominal one: an essential feature is the taking of the bride to her husband’s home, and the ensuing cohabitation. Limitations on Marriage.—It is difficult to say with certainty within what limits marriage was allowed. The dialogue of Yama and Yam! in the Rigveda seems clearly to point to a prohibition of the marriage of brother and sister. It can hardly be said, as Weber thinks, to point to a practice that was once in use and later became antiquated. In the Gobhila Grhya Sūtra and the Dharma Sūtras are found prohibitions against marriage in the Gotra (‘ family ’) or within six degrees on the mother’s or father’s side, but in the śatapatha Brāh-mana marriage is allowed in the third or fourth generation, the former being allowed, according to Harisvamin, by the Kanvas, and the second by the Saurāstras, while the Dāksi- nātyas allowed marriage with the daughter of the mother’s brother or the son of the father’s sister, but presumably not with the daughter of the mother’s sister or the son of the father’s brother. The prohibition of marriage within the Gotra cannot then have existed, though naturally marriages outside the Gotra were frequent. Similarity of caste was also not an essential to marriage, as hypergamy was permitted even by the Dharma Sūtras, so that a Brāhmana could marry wives of any lower caste, a Ksatriya wives of the two lowest castes as well as of his own caste, a Vaiśya a Sūdrā as well as a Vaiśyā, although the Sūdrā marriages were later disapproved in toto. Instances of such intermarriage are common in the Epic, and are viewed as normal in the Brhaddevatā. It was considered proper that the younger brothers and sisters should not anticipate their elders by marrying before them. The later Samhitās and Brāhmanas present a series of names expressive of such anticipation, censuring as sinful those who bear them. These terms are the pari-vividāna, or perhaps agre-dadhus, the man who, though a younger brother, marries before his elder brother, the latter being then called the parivitta; the agre-didhisu, the man who weds a younger daughter while her elder sister is still unmarried; and the Didhisū-pati, who is the husband of the latter. The passages do not explicitly say that the exact order of birth must always be followed, but the mention of the terms shows that the order was often broken. Widow Remarriage. The remarriage of a widow was apparently permitted. This seems originally to have taken the form of the marriage of the widow to the brother or other nearest kinsman of the dead man in order to produce children. At any rate, the ceremony is apparently alluded to in a funeral hymn of the Rigveda ; for the alternative explanation, which sees in the verse a reference to the ritual of the Purusamedha (‘human sacrifice’), although accepted by Hillebrandt and Delbruck, is not at all probable, while the ordinary view is supported by the Sūtra evidence. Moreover, another passage of the Rigveda clearly refers to the marriage of the widow and the husband’s brother {devr), which constitutes what the Indians later knew as Niyoga. This custom was probably not followed except in cases where no son was already born. This custom was hardly remarriage in the strict sense, since the brother might—so far as appears—be already married himself. In the Atharvaveda, a verse refers to a charm which would secure the reunion, in the next world, of a wife and her second husband. Though, as Delbruck thinks, this very possibly refers to a case in which the first husband was still alive, but was impotent or had lost caste (patita), still it is certain that the later Dharma Sūtras began to recognize ordinary remarriage in case of the death of the first husband Pischel finds some evidence in the Rigveda to the effect that a woman could remarry if her husband disappeared and could not be found or heard of. Polygamy. A Vedic Indian could have more than one wife. This is proved clearly by many passages in the Rigveda; Manu, according to the Maitrāyanī Samhitā, had ten wives ; and the Satapatha Brāhmana explains polygamy by a characteristic legend. Moreover, the king regularly has four wives attributed to him, the Mahisī, the Parivrktī, the Vāvātā, and the Pālāgalī. The Mahisī appears to be the chief wife, being the first, one married according to the śata¬patha Brāhmana. The Parivrktī, ‘ the neglected,’ is explained by Weber and Pischel as one that has had no son. The Vāvātā is ‘the favourite,’ while the Pālāgalī is, according to Weber, the daughter of the last of the court officials. The names are curious, and not very intelligible, but the evidence points to the wife first wedded alone being a wife in the fullest sense. This view is supported by the fact emphasized by Delbruck, that in the sacrifice the Patnī is usually mentioned in the singular, apparent exceptions being due to some mythological reason. Zimmer is of opinion that polygamy is dying out in the Rigvedic period, monogamy being developed from pologamy; Weber, however, thinks that polygamy is secondary, a view that is supported by more recent anthropology. Polyandry.—On the other hand, polyandry is not Vedic. There is no passage containing any clear reference to such a custom. The most that can be said is that in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda verses are occasionally found in which husbands are mentioned in relation to a single wife. It is difficult to be certain of the correct explanation of each separate instance of this mode of expression; but even if Weber’s view, that the plural is here used majestatis causa, is not accepted, Delbruck’s explanation by mythology is probably right. In other passages the plural is simply generic. Marital Relations.—Despite polygamy, however, there is ample evidence that the marriage tie was not, as Weber has suggested, lightly regarded as far as the fidelity of the wife was concerned. There is, however, little trace of the husband’s being expected to be faithful as a matter of morality. Several passages, indeed, forbid, with reference to ritual abstinence, intercourse with the strī of another. This may imply that adultery on the husband’s part was otherwise regarded as venial. But as the word strī includes all the ‘womenfolk,’ daughters and slaves, as well as wife, the conclusion can hardly be drawn that intercourse with another man’s ‘wife’ was normally regarded with indifference. The curious ritual of the Varunapraghāsās, in which the wife of the sacrificer is questioned as to her lovers, is shown by Delbruck to be a part of a rite meant to expiate unchastity on the part of a wife, not as a normal question for a sacrificer to put to his own wife. Again, Yājñavalkya’s doctrine in the Satapatha Brāhmana, which seems to assert that no one cares if a wife is unchaste (parah-pumsā) or not, really means that no one cares if the wife is away from the men who are sacrificing, as the wives of the gods are apart from them during the particular rite in question. Monogamy is also evidently approved, so that some higher idea of morality was in course of formation. On the other hand, no Vedic text gives us the rule well known to other Indo-Germanic peoples that the adulterer taken in the act can be killed with impunity, though the later legal literature has traces of this rule. There is also abundant evidence that the standard of ordinary sexual morality was not high. Hetairai. In the Rigveda there are many references to illegitimate love and to the abandonment of the offspring of such unions,ββ especially in the case of a protege of Indra, often mentioned as the parāvrkta or parāvrj. The ‘son of a maiden ’ (kumārī-putra) is already spoken of in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. Such a person appears with a metronymic in the Upanisad period: this custom may be the origin of metro- nymics such as those which make up a great part of the lists of teachers (Vamśas) of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad. The Vājasaneyi Samhitā refers to illicit unions of śūdra and Arya, both male and female, besides giving in its list of victims at the Purusamedha, or ‘human sacrifice,’ several whose designations apparently mean ‘ courtesan (atītvarī) and ‘ procuress of abortion ’ (
('Descendant of Lohita’) is mentioned in a Vamśa (‘list of teachers’) in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana as a pupil of śyāmajayanta Lauhitya. The name is obviously a late one, for Palli is not found in the early literature, and the name of the Lauhitya family is otherwise known in post-Vedic works only.
Means a ‘ king of the Pañcāla people,’ and is applied to Durmukha in the Aitareya Brāhmana and to śona in the śatapatha Brāhmana. The term is also found in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana. See also Pañcāla.
(‘Descendant of Prācīnayoga’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Dpti Aindroti śaunaka, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. He taught Pauluçi Satyayajña.
‘Descendant of Puluṣa,’ is the patronymic of Sat- yayajña in the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Chān- dogya Upanisad. In the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana the form is Paulusita, which is perhaps merely an error.
Is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana as sacrificing with the Dākṣāyana offering, and as teaching Suplan Sārñjaya, who thence became Sahadeva Sārñjaya. In a second passage he is called Pratīdarśa Aibhāvata, and again brought into connexion with Suplan Sārñjaya. According to Eggeling, he is to be deemed a king of the śviknas ; apparently, too, he was a descendant of Ibhāvant. A Pratīdarśa is also mentioned in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana.
(‘Descendant of Jīvala ’) is the name of a prince, contemporary with Uddālaka, who appears in the Upaniṣads as engaged in philosophical discussions. He is probably identical with the Jaivali of the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana.
‘Descendant of Prācmayoga,’ is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Pārāśarya, in the first Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad. A Prācīnayogya is mentioned also in the Chāndogya and the Taittirlya Upaniṣads, and the same patronymic is found in the śatapatha Brāhmana and in the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmana (see Puluça, Satyayajña, Somaśuçma).
(‘Descendant of Upamanyu’) is the name of a householder and theologian in the Chāndogya Upanisad. A Prācīnaśāli appears as an Udgātṛ priest in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaria, and the Prācīnaśālas are mentioned in the same Upanisad.
Properly denoting ‘breath,’ is a term of wide and vague significance in Vedic literature. It is frequently mentioned from the Rigveda onwards; in the Áranyakas and Upanisads it is one of the commonest symbols of the unity of the universe. In the narrow sense Prāṇa denotes one of the vital airs, of which five are usually enumerated—Prāna, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, and Samāna; but often only two, Prāna and Apāna, or Prāna and Vyāna, or Prāṇa and Udāna; or three, Prāṇa, Apāna, and Vyāna, or Prāṇa, Udāna, and Vyāna, or Prāṇa, Udāna, and Samāna; or four, Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, and Samāna, or Prāṇa, Apāna, Udāna, Vyāna. The exact sense of each of these breaths when all are mentioned cannot be determined. Prāṇa is also used in a wider sense to denote the organs of sense, or as Sāyana puts it, the ‘orifices of the head,’ etc. These are given as six in one passage of the śatapatha Brāhmana, presumably the eyes, ears, and nostrils. More frequently there are stated to be seven in the head, the mouth being then included. Sometimes again they are mentioned as nine, or as seven in the head and two below. Ten are counted in the śatapatha Brāhmaria and the Jaiminiya Brāhmana, while even eleven are mentioned in the Kāthaka Upanisad, and twelve in the Kāthaka Samhitā, where the two breasts are added. Exactly what organs are taken to make up the numbers beyond seven is not certain. The tenth is the navel (nābhi) in the Maitrāyanī Samhitā j when eleven are named the Brahma-randhra (suture in the crown) may be included; in the Atharvaveda, as interpreted by the Brhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, the seventh and eighth are the organs of taste and speech respectively. But usually these make one only, and the eighth and ninth are either in the breast or below (the organs of evacuation). The word Prāṇa has sometimes merely the general sense of breath, even when opposed to Apāna. But its proper sense is beyond question ‘ breathing forth,’ ‘ expiration,’ and not as the St. Petersburg Dictionary explains it, ‘ the breath inspired,’ a version due to the desire to interpret Apāna as ‘expiration,’ a meaning suggested by the preposition apa, ‘away.’ This being clearly shown both by the native scholiasts and by other evidence, Bǒhtlingk later accepted the new view.
Descendant of Pratpd,’ is the patronymic of a teacher called Bhālla in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa and of another teacher in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad.
Is the name of a locality, forty-four days’ journey from the spot where the Sarasvatī disappears. It is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa and the Jaiminīya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa. In the latter text it is said that the middle of the earth is only a span (Prādeśa) to the north of it. In the Rigveda Sūtras3 the locality is called Plākṣa Prasravaṇa, and is apparently meant to designate the source of the Sarasvatī rather than the place of its reappearance.
('Descendant of Dalbha’) is the name of a person mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa as constraining Indra for the Ájakeśins, and as a Kuru- Pañcāla. fι.
(Descendant of Cekitāna’) is the name of a teacher in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, He is mentioned also in the Jaiminiya Upanisad as patronized by Abhipratārin, the Kuru king.
(Descendant of Ikṣvāku’) is the name of a king in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa. It is important to note that he is regarded as being on friendly terms with the Kuru-Pañcālas, which points to the Ikṣvākus being allied to that people, and not belonging (as is the case in the Buddhist books) to the east of India.
(‘Descendant of Asamāti ’) is the name of a king in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. Oertel, however, seems to take the name as Abhayada, but this is not probable, for Bhayada is a name in the Purāṇas.
Is the name of a tribe mentioned along with the ! Mμjavants in the Atharvaveda as a locality to which fever is to be relegated. It is reasonable to suppose that they were northerners, though Bloomfield suggests that the name may be chosen more for its sound and sense (as ‘of mighty strength’ to resist the disease) than for its geographical position. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad3 the place Raikvaparṇa is said to be in the Mahāvrṣa country. The king of the Mahāvrṣas in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa is said to be Hrtsvāśaya. The Mahāvṛṣas are also known from a Mantra in the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra.
(‘Descendant of Itara or Itarā’) is the name of the sage from whom the Aitareya Brāhmana and Aranyaka take their names. He is several times referred to in the Aitareya Araṇyaka, but not as its author. He is credited with a life of 116 years in the Chāndogya Upanisad and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana.
A ‘kingly family, is mentioned in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa, where, it is to be noted, such a family is ranked after, not before, a Brāhmaṇa Kula, a ‘Brahmin family.’
(‘Descendant of Kratu-jāta’) Vaiyā- ghra-padya (descendant of Vyāghrapad’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of śañga śātyāyani Átreya, who is mentioned in two Vamśas (lists of teachers) in the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmaṇa.
‘Red metal is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmana, where it is distinguished from Ayas and gold. In the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmana the contrast is with Kārṣṇā-yasa, ‘iron,’ and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa with Krṣnāyasa, ‘iron.’ ‘Copper’ seems to be meant.
(lit. ‘colour’) In the Rigveda is applied to denote classes of men, the Dāsa and the Aryan Varṇa being contrasted, as other passages show, on account of colour. But this use is confined to distinguishing two colours: in this respect the Rigveda differs fundamentally from the later Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas, where the four castes (varnūh) are already fully recognized. (a) Caste in the Rigveda.—The use of the term Varṇa is not, of course, conclusive for the question whether caste existed in the Rigveda. In one sense it must be admitted to have existed: the Puruṣa-sūkta, ‘hymn of man,’ in the tenth Maṇdala clearly contemplates the division of mankind into four classes—the Brāhmaṇa, Rājanya, Vaiśya, and śūdra. But the hymn being admittedly late,6 its evidence is not cogent for the bulk of the Rigveda.' Zimmer has with great force com- batted the view that the Rigveda was produced in a society that knew the caste system. He points out that the Brāhmaṇas show us the Vedic Indians on the Indus as unbrah- minized, and not under the caste system; he argues that the Rigveda was the product of tribes living in the Indus region and the Panjab; later on a part of this people, who had wandered farther east, developed the peculiar civilization of the caste system. He adopts the arguments of Muir, derived from the study of the data of the Rigveda, viz.: that (a) the four castes appear only in the late Purusasūkta; (6) the term Varṇa, as shown above, covers the three highest castes of later times, and is only contrasted with Dāsa; (c) that Brāhmaṇa is rare in the Rigveda, Kṣatriya occurs seldom, Rājanya only in the Purusasūkta, where too, alone, Vaiśya and śūdra are found; (d) that Brahman denotes at first ‘poet,’ ‘sage,’ and then ‘ officiating priest,’ or still later a special class of priest; (e) that in some only of the passages where it occurs does Brahman denote a ‘priest by profession,’ while in others it denotes something peculiar to the individual, designating a person distinguished for genius or virtue, or specially chosen to receive divine inspiration. Brāhmaṇa, on the other hand, as Muir admits, already denotes a hereditary professional priesthood. Zimmer connects the change from the casteless system of the Rigveda to the elaborate system of the Yajurveda with the advance of the Vedic Indians to the east, comparing the Ger¬manic invasions that transformed the German tribes into monarchies closely allied with the church. The needs of a conquering people evoke the monarch; the lesser princes sink to the position of nobles ; for repelling the attacks of aborigines or of other Aryan tribes, and for quelling the revolts of the subdued population, the state requires a standing army in the shape of the armed retainers of the king, and beside the nobility of the lesser princes arises that of the king’s chief retainers, as the Thegns supplemented the Gesiths of the Anglo-Saxon monarchies. At the same time the people ceased to take part in military matters, and under climatic influences left the conduct of war to the nobility and their retainers, devoting themselves to agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade. But the advantage won by the nobles over the people was shared by them with the priesthood, the origin of whose power lies in the Purohitaship, as Roth first saw. Originally the prince could sacrifice for himself and the people, but the Rigveda itself shows cases, like those of Viśvāmitra and Vasiçtha illustrating forcibly the power of the Purohita, though at the same time the right of the noble to act as Purohita is seen in the case of Devāpi Arṣtisena.le The Brahmins saw their opportunity, through the Purohitaship, of gaining practical power during the confusion and difficulties of the wars of invasion, and secured it, though only after many struggles, the traces of which are seen in the Epic tradition. The Atharvaveda also preserves relics of these conflicts in its narration of the ruin of the Spñjayas because of oppressing Brahmins, and besides other hymns of the Atharvaveda, the śatarudriya litany of the Yajurveda reflects the period of storm and stress when the aboriginal population was still seething with discontent, and Rudra was worshipped as the patron god of all sorts of evil doers. This version of the development of caste has received a good deal of acceptance in it's main outlines, and it may almost be regarded as the recognized version. It has, however, always been opposed by some scholars, such as Haug, Kern, Ludwig, and more recently by Oldenberg25 and by Geldner.25 The matter may be to some extent simplified by recognizing at once that the caste system is one that has progressively developed, and that it is not legitimate to see in the Rigveda the full caste system even of the Yajurveda; but at the same time it is difficult to doubt that the system was already well on its way to general acceptance. The argument from the non- brahminical character of the Vrātyas of the Indus and Panjab loses its force when it is remembered that there is much evidence in favour of placing the composition of the bulk of the Rigveda, especially the books in which Sudās appears with Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, in the east, the later Madhyadeśa, a view supported by Pischel, Geldner, Hopkins,30 and Mac¬donell.81 Nor is it possible to maintain that Brahman in the Rigveda merely means a ‘poet or sage.’ It is admitted by Muir that in some passages it must mean a hereditary profession ; in fact, there is not a single passage in which it occurs where the sense of priest is not allowable, since the priest was of course the singer. Moreover, there are traces in the Rigveda of the threefold or fourfold division of the people into brahma, ksafram, and vitofi, or into the three classes and the servile population. Nor even in respect to the later period, any more than to the Rigveda, is the view correct that regards the Vaiśyas as not taking part in war. The Rigveda evidently knows of no restriction of war to a nobility and its retainers, but the late Atharvaveda equally classes the folk with the bala, power,’ representing the Viś as associated with the Sabhā, Samiti, and Senā, the assemblies of the people and the armed host. Zimmer explains these references as due to tradition only; but this is hardly a legitimate argument, resting, as it does, on the false assumption that only a Kṣatriya can fight. But it is (see Kçatriya) very doubtful whether Kṣatriya means anything more than a member of the nobility, though later, in the Epic, it included the retainers of the nobility, who increased in numbers with the growth of military monarchies, and though later the ordinary people did not necessarily take part in wars, an abstention that is, however, much exaggerated if it is treated as an absolute one. The Kṣatriyas were no doubt a hereditary body; monarchy was already hereditary (see Rājan), and it is admitted that the śūdras were a separate body: thus all the elements of the caste system were already in existence. The Purohita, indeed, was a person of great importance, but it is clear, as Oldenberg37 urges, that he was not the creator of the power of the priesthood, but owed his position, and the influence he could in consequence exert, to the fact that the sacrifice required for its proper performance the aid of a hereditary priest in whose possession was the traditional sacred knowledge. Nor can any argument for the non-existence of the caste system be derived from cases like that of Devāpi. For, in the first place, the Upaniṣads show kings in the exercise of the priestly functions of learning and teaching, and the Upaniṣads are certainly contemporaneous with an elaborated caste system. In the second place the Rigvedic evidence is very weak, for Devāpi, who certainly acts as Purohita, is not stated in the Rigveda to be a prince at all, though Yāska calls him a Kauravya; the hymns attributed to kings and others cannot be vindicated for them by certain evidence, though here, again, the Brāhmaṇas do not scruple to recognize Rājanyarṣis, or royal sages’; and the famous Viśvāmitra shows in the Rigveda no sign of the royal character which the Brāhmaṇas insist on fastening on him in the shape of royal descent in the line of Jahnu. (6) Caste in the later Samhitās and Brāhmanas. The relation between the later and the earlier periods of the Vedic history of caste must probably be regarded in the main as the hardening of a system already formed by the time of the Rigveda. etc. Three castes Brāhmaṇa, Rājan, śūdraare mentioned in the Atharvaveda, and two castes are repeatedly mentioned together, either Brahman and Kṣatra, or Kṣatra and Viś. 2.The Relation of the Castes. The ritual literature is full of minute differences respecting the castes. Thus, for example, the śatapatha prescribes different sizes of funeral mounds for the four castes. Different modes of address are laid down for the four castes, as ehi, approach ’; āgaccha, ‘come’; ādrava, run up ’; ādhāva, hasten up,’ which differ in degrees of politeness. The representatives of the four castes are dedicated at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’) to different deities. The Sūtras have many similar rules. But the three upper castes in some respects differ markedly from the fourth, the śūdras. The latter are in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa declared not fit to be addressed by a Dīkṣita, consecrated person,’ and no śūdra is to milk the cow whose milk is to be used for the Agnihotra ('fire-oblation’). On the other hand, in certain passages, the śūdra is given a place in the Soma sacrifice, and in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa there are given formulas for the placing of the sacrificial fire not only for the three upper castes, but also for the Rathakāra, chariot-maker.’ Again, in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhmaṇa is opposed as eater of the oblation to the members of the other three castes. The characteristics of the several castes are given under Brāhmaṇa, Kçatriya and Rājan, Vaiśya, śūdra: they may be briefly summed up as follows : The Viś forms the basis of the state on which the Brahman and Kṣatra rest;®3 the Brahman and Kṣatra are superior to the Viś j®4 while all three classes are superior to the śūdras. The real power of the state rested with the king and his nobles, with their retainers, who may be deemed the Kṣatriya element. Engaged in the business of the protection of the country, its administration, the decision of legal cases, and in war, the nobles subsisted, no doubt, on the revenues in kind levied from the people, the king granting to them villages (see Grāma) for their maintenance, while some of them, no doubt, had lands of their own cultivated for them by slaves or by tenants. The states were seemingly small there are no clear signs of any really large kingdoms, despite the mention of Mahārājas. The people, engaged in agriculture, pastoral pursuits, and trade (Vaṇij), paid tribute to the king and nobles for the protection afforded them. That, as Baden- Powell suggests, they were not themselves agriculturists is probably erroneous; some might be landowners on a large scale, and draw their revenues from śūdra tenants, or even Aryan tenants, but that the people as a whole were in this position is extremely unlikely. In war the people shared the conflicts of the nobles, for there was not yet any absolute separation of the functions of the several classes. The priests may be divided into two classes the Purohitas of the kings, who guided their employers by their counsel, and were in a position to acquire great influence in the state, as it is evident they actually did, and the ordinary priests who led quiet lives, except when they were engaged on some great festival of a king or a wealthy noble. The relations and functions of the castes are well summed up in a passage of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, which treats of them as opposed to the Kṣatriya. The Brāhmaṇa is a receiver of gifts (ā-dāyī), a drinker of Soma (ā-pāyī), a seeker of food (āvasāyī), and liable to removal at will (yathākāma-prayāpyaīi).n The Vaiśya is tributary to another (anyasya balikrt), to be lived on by another (anyasyādyal}), and to be oppressed at will (yathā- kāma-jyeyal}). The śūdra is the servant of another (anyasya j>resyah), to be expelled at will (kāmotthāpyah), and to be slain at pleasure {yathākāma-vadhyah). The descriptions seem calculated to show the relation of each of the castes to the Rājanya. Even the Brāhmaṇa he can control, whilst the Vaiśya is his inferior and tributary, whom he can remove without cause from his land, but who is still free, and whom he cannot maim or slay without due process. The śūdra has no rights of property or life against the noble, especially the king. The passage is a late one, and the high place of the Kṣatriya is to some extent accounted for by this fact. It is clear that in the course of time the Vaiśya fell more and more in position with the hardening of the divisions of caste. Weber shows reason for believing that the Vājapeya sacrifice, a festival of which a chariot race forms an integral part, was, as the śāñkhāyana śrauta Sūtra says, once a sacrifice for a Vaiśya, as well as for a priest or king. But the king, too, had to suffer diminution of his influence at the hands of the priest: the Taittirīya texts show that the Vājapeya was originally a lesser sacrifice which, in the case of a king, was followed by the Rājasūya, or consecration of him as an overlord of lesser kings, and in that of the Brahmin by the Bṛhaspatisava, a festival celebrated on his appointment as a royal Purohita. But the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa exalts the Vājapeya, in which a priest could be the sacrificer, over the Rājasūya, from which he was excluded, and identifies it with the Bṛhaspatisava, a clear piece of juggling in the interests of the priestly pretentions. But we must not overestimate the value of such passages, or the exaltation of the Purohita in the later books of the śatapatha and Aitareya Brāhmanas as evidence of a real growth in the priestly power: these books represent the views of the priests of what their own powers should be, and to some extent were in the Madhyadeśa. Another side of the picture is presented in the Pāli literature, which, belonging to a later period than the Vedic, undoubtedly underestimates the position of the priests ; while the Epic, more nearly contemporaneous with the later Vedic period, displays, despite all priestly redaction, the temporal superiority of the nobility in clear light. Although clear distinctions were made between the different castes, there is little trace in Vedic literature of one of the leading characteristics of the later system, the impurity communicated by the touch or contact of the inferior castes, which is seen both directly in the purification rendered necessary in case of contact with a śūdra, and indirectly in the prohibition of eating in company with men of lower caste. It is true that prohibition of eating in company with others does appear, but hot in connexion with caste: its purpose is to preserve the peculiar sanctity of those who perform a certain rite or believe in a certain doctrine; for persons who eat of the same food together, according to primitive thought, acquire the same characteristics and enter into a sacramental communion. But Vedic literature does not yet show that to take food from an inferior caste was forbidden as destroying purity. Nor, of course, has the caste system developed the constitution with a head, a council, and common festivals which the modern caste has; for such an organization is not found even in the Epic or in the Pāli literature. The Vedic characteristics of caste are heredity, pursuit of a common occupation, and restriction on intermarriage. 3. Restrictions on Intermarriage. Arrian, in his Indica, probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibi¬tion of marriage between <γevη, no doubt castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Aryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified. The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Rṣi, and on purity of descent ; but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’ and Vatsa was accused of being a śūdrā’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal. He who is learned (śiiśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Rṣi (1ārseya), in the Taittirīya Samhitā; and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father. The Kāthaka Samhitā says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Samhitās recognize the illicit union of Árya and śūdrā, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Brhaddevatā. In a hymn of the Atharvaveda extreme claims are put forward for the Brāhmaṇa, who alone is a true husband and the real husband, even if the woman has had others, a Rājanya or a Vaiśya: a śūdra Husband is not mentioned, probably on purpose. The marriage of Brāhmaṇas with Rājanya women is illustrated by the cases of Sukanyā, daughter of king śaryāta, who married Cyavana, and of Rathaviti’s daughter, who married śyāvāśva. 4.Occupation and Caste.—The Greek authorities and the evidence of the Jātakas concur in showing it to have been the general rule that each caste was confined to its own occupations, but that the Brāhmaṇas did engage in many professions beside that of simple priest, while all castes gave members to the śramaṇas, or homeless ascetics. The Jātakas recognize the Brahmins as engaged in all sorts of occupations, as merchants, traders, agriculturists, and so forth. Matters are somewhat simpler in Vedic literature, where the Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas appear as practically confined to their own professions of sacrifice and military or administrative functions. Ludwig sees in Dīrgliaśravas in the Rigveda a Brahmin reduced by indigence to acting as a merchant, as allowed even later by the Sūtra literature; but this is not certain, though it is perfectly possible. More interesting is the question how far the Ksatriyas practised the duties of priests; the evidence here is conflicting. The best known case is, of course, that of Viśvāmitra. In the Rigveda he appears merely as a priest who is attached to the court of Sudās, king of the Tftsus ; but in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa he is called a king, a descendant of Jahnu, and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa refers to śunahśepa’s succeeding, through his adoption by Viśvāmitra, to the divine lore (daiva veda) of the Gāthins and the lordship of the Jahnus. That in fact this tradition is correct seems most improbable, but it serves at least to illustrate the existence of seers of royal origin. Such figures appear more than once in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana, which knows the technical terms Rājanyarçi and Devarājan corresponding to the later Rājarṣi, royal sage.’ The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa says of one who knows a certain doctrine, ‘being a king he becomes a seer’ (rājā sann rsir bhavati), and the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana applies the term Rāj'anya to a Brāhmaṇa. Again, it is argued that Devāpi Árstiseṇa, who acted as Purohita, according to the Rigveda, for śantanu, was a prince, as Yāska says or implies he was. But this assumption seems to be only an error of Yāska’s. Since nothing in the Rigveda alludes to any relationship, it is impossible to accept Sieg’s view that the Rigveda recognizes the two as brothers, but presents the fact of a prince acting the part of Purohita as unusual and requiring explanation. The principle, however, thus accepted by Sieg as to princes in the Rigveda seems sound enough. Again, Muir has argued that Hindu tradition, as shown in Sāyaṇa, regards many hymns of the Rigveda as composed by royal personages, but he admits that in many cases the ascription is wrong; it may be added that in the case of Prthī Vainya, where the hymn ascribed to him seems to be his, it is not shown in the hymn itself that he is other than a seer; the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa calls him a king, but that is probably of no more value than the later tradition as to Viśvāmitra. The case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas mentioned in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa has been cited as that of a king sacrificing without priestly aid, but the interpretation iś quite uncertain, while the parallel of the Kaśyapas, Asitamrgas, and Bhūtavīras mentioned in the course of the narrative renders it highly probable that the king had other priests to carry out the sacrifice. Somewhat different are a series of other cases found in the Upaniṣads, where the Brahma doctrine is ascribed to royal persons. Thus Janaka is said in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa to have become a Brahman; Ajātaśatru taught Gārgya Bālāki Pravāhaṇa Jaivali instructed śvetaketu Áruṇeya, as well as śilaka śālāvatya and Caikitāyana Dālbhya; and Aśvapati Kaikeya taught Brahmins. It has been deduced from such passages that the Brahma doctrine was a product of the Kṣatriyas. This conclusion is, however, entirely doubtful, for kings were naturally willing to be flattered by the ascription to them of philosophic activity, and elsewhere the opinion of a Rājanya is treated with contempt. It is probably a fair deduction that the royal caste did not much concern itself with the sacred lore of the priests, though it is not unlikely that individual exceptions occurred. But that warriors became priests, that an actual change of caste took place, is quite unproved by a single genuine example. That it was impossible we cannot say, but it seems not to have taken place. To be distinguished from a caste change, as Fick points out, is the fact that a member of any caste could, in the later period at least, become a śramaṇa, as is recorded in effect of many kings in the Epic. Whether the practice is Vedic is not clear: Yāska records it of Devāpi, but this is not evidence for times much anterior to the rise of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Brahmins, or at least the Purohitas, accompanied the princes in battle, and probably, like the mediaeval clergy, were not unprepared to fight, as Vasistha and Viśvāmitra seem to have done, and as priests do even in the Epic from time to time. But a priest cannot be said to change caste by acting in this way. More generally the possibility of the occurrence of change of caste may be seen in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa,138 where śyāparṇa Sāyakāyana is represented as speaking of his off¬spring as if they could have become the nobles, priests, and commons of the śalvas; and in the Aitareya Brāhmana,139 where Viśvantara is told that if the wrong offering were made his children would be of the three other castes. A drunken Rṣi of the Rigveda140 talks as if he could be converted into a king. On the other hand, certain kings, such as Para Átṇāra, are spoken of as performers of Sattras, ‘sacrificial sessions.’ As evidence for caste exchange all this amounts to little; later a Brahmin might become a king, while the Rṣi in the Rigveda is represented as speaking in a state of intoxication; the great kings could be called sacrificers if, for the nonce, they were consecrated (dīksita), and so temporarily became Brahmins.The hypothetical passages, too, do not help much. It would be unwise to deny the possibility of caste exchange, but it is not clearly indicated by any record. Even cases like that of Satyakāma Jābāla do not go far; for ex hypothesi that teacher did not know who his father was, and the latter could quite well have been a Brahmin. It may therefore be held that the priests and the nobles practised hereditary occupations, and that either class was a closed body into which a man must be born. These two Varṇas may thus be fairly regarded as castes. The Vaiśyas offer more difficulty, for they practised a great variety of occupations (see Vaiśya). Fick concludes that there is no exact sense in which they can be called a caste, since, in the Buddhist literature, they were divided into various groups, which themselves practised endogamy such as the gahapatis, or smaller landowners, the setthis, or large merchants and members of the various guilds, while there are clear traces in the legal textbooks of a view that Brāhmana and Kṣatriya stand opposed to all the other members of the community. But we need hardly accept this view for Vedic times, when the Vaiśya, the ordinary freeman of the tribe, formed a class or caste in all probability, which was severed by its free status from the śūdras, and which was severed by its lack of priestly or noble blood from the two higher classes in the state. It is probably legitimate to hold that any Vaiśya could marry any member of the caste, and that the later divisions within the category of Vaiśyas are growths of divisions parallel with the original process by which priest and noble had grown into separate entities. The process can be seen to-day when new tribes fall under the caste system: each class tries to elevate itself in the social scale by refusing to intermarry with inferior classes on equal terms—hypergamy is often allowed—and so those Vaiśyas who acquired wealth in trade (śreṣthin) or agriculture (the Pāli Gahapatis) would become distinct, as sub-castes, from the ordinary Vaiśyas. But it is not legitimate to regard Vaiśya as a theoretic caste; rather it is an old caste which is in process of dividing into innumerable sub-castes under influences of occupation, religion, or geographical situation. Fick denies also that the śūdras ever formed a single caste: he regards the term as covering the numerous inferior races and tribes defeated by the Aryan invaders, but originally as denoting only one special tribe. It is reasonable to suppose that śūdra was the name given by the Vedic Indians to the nations opposing them, and that these ranked as slaves beside the three castes—nobles, priests, and people—just as in the Anglo-Saxon and early German constitution beside the priests, the nobiles or eorls, and the ingenui, ordinary freemen or ceorls, there was a distinct class of slaves proper; the use of a generic expression to cover them seems natural, whatever its origin (see śūdra). In the Aryan view a marriage of śūdras could hardly be regulated by rules; any śūdra could wed another, if such a marriage could be called a marriage at all, for a slave cannot in early law be deemed to be capable of marriage proper. But what applied in the early Vedic period became no doubt less and less applicable later when many aboriginal tribes and princes must have come into the Aryan community by peaceful means, or by conquest, without loss of personal liberty, and when the term śūdra would cover many sorts of people who were not really slaves, but were freemen of a humble character occupied in such functions as supplying the numerous needs of the village, like the Caṇdālas, or tribes living under Aryan control, or independent, such as the Niṣādas. But it is also probable that the śūdras came to include men of Aryan race, and that the Vedic period saw the degradation of Aryans to a lower social status. This seems, at any rate, to have been the case with the Rathakāras. In the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa the Rathakāra is placed as a special class along with the Brāhmaṇas, Rājanyas, and Vaiśyas: this can hardly be interpreted except to mean that the Rathakāras were not included in the Aryan classes, though it is just possible that only a subdivision of the Vaiśyas is meant. There is other evidence that the Rathakāras were regarded as śūdras. But in the Atharvaveda the Rathakāras and the Karmāras appear in a position of importance in connexion with the selection of the king; these two classes are also referred to in an honourable way in the Vājasaneyi Sarphitā; in the śata¬patha Brāhmaṇa, too, the Rathakāra is mentioned as a a person of high standing. It is impossible to accept the view suggested by Fick that these classes were originally non- Aryan ; we must recognize that the Rathakāras, in early Vedic times esteemed for their skill, later became degraded because of the growth of the feeling that manual labour was not dignified. The development of this idea was a departure from the Aryan conception; it is not unnatural, however undesirable, and has a faint parallel in the class distinctions of modern Europe. Similarly, the Karmāra, the Takṣan the Carmamna, or ‘tanner,’ the weaver and others, quite dignified occupations in the Rigveda, are reckoned as śūdras in the Pāli texts. The later theory, which appears fully developed in the Dharma Sūtras, deduces the several castes other than the original four from the intermarriage of the several castes. This theory has no justification in the early Vedic literature. In some cases it is obviously wrong; for example, the Sūta is said to be a caste of this kind, whereas it is perfectly clear that if the Sūtas did form a caste, it was one ultimately due to occupation. But there is no evidence at all that the Sūtas, Grāmaηīs, and other members of occupations were real castes in the sense that they were endogamic in the early Vedic period. All that we can say is that there was a steady progress by which caste after caste was formed, occupation being an important determining feature, just as in modern times there are castes bearing names like Gopāla (cowherd ’) Kaivarta or Dhīvara ('fisherman'), and Vaṇij (‘merchant’). Fick finds in the Jātakas mention of a number of occupations whose members did not form part of any caste at all, such as the attendants on the court, the actors and dancers who went from village to village, and the wild tribes that lived in the mountains, fishermen, hunters, and so on. In Vedic times these people presumably fell under the conception of śūdra, and may have included the Parṇaka, Paulkasa, Bainda, who are mentioned with many others in the Vājasaneyi Samhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa in the list of victims at the Puruṣamedha (‘human sacrifice’). The slaves also, whom Fick includes in the same category, were certainly included in the term śūdra. 5. Origin of the Castes.—The question of the origin of the castes presents some difficulty. The ultimate cause of the extreme rigidity of the caste system, as compared with the features of any other Aryan society, must probably be sought in the sharp distinction drawn from the beginning between the Aryan and the śūdra. The contrast which the Vedic Indians felt as existing between themselves and the conquered population, and which probably rested originally on the difference of colour between the upper and the lower classes, tended to accentuate the natural distinctions of birth, occupation, and locality which normally existed among the Aryan Indians, but which among other Aryan peoples never developed into a caste system like that of India. The doctrine of hypergamy which marks the practical working of the caste system, seems clearly to point to the feeling that the Aryan could marry the śūdrā, but not the śūdra the Aryā. This distinction probably lies at the back of all other divisions: its force may be illustrated by the peculiar state of feeling as to mixed marriages, for example, in the Southern States of America and in South Africa, or even in India itself, between the new invaders from Europe and the mingled population which now peoples the country. Marriages between persons of the white and the dark race are disapproved in principle, but varying degrees of condemnation attach to (1) the marriage of a man of the white race with a woman of the dark race; (2) an informal connexion between these two; (3) a marriage between a woman of the white race and a man of the dark race; and (4) an informal connexion between these two. Each category, on the whole, is subject to more severe reprobation than the preceding one. This race element, it would seem, is what has converted social divisions into castes. There appears, then, to be a large element of truth in the theory, best represented by Risley, which explains caste in the main as a matter of blood, and which holds that the higher the caste is, the greater is the proportion of Aryan blood. The chief rival theory is undoubtedly that of Senart, which places the greatest stress on the Aryan constitution of the family. According to Senart the Aryan people practised in affairs of marriage both a rule of exogamy, and one of endogamy. A man must marry a woman of equal birth, but not one of the same gens, according to Roman law as interpreted by Senart and Kovalevsky ; and an Athenian must marry an Athenian woman, but not one of the same γez/oç. In India these rules are reproduced in the form that one must not marry within the Gotra, but not without the caste. The theory, though attractively developed, is not convincing; the Latin and Greek parallels are not even probably accurate ; and in India the rule forbidding marriage within the Gotra is one which grows in strictness as the evidence grows later in date. On the other hand, it is not necessary to deny that the development of caste may have been helped by the family traditions of some gentes, or Gotras. The Patricians of Rome for a long time declined intermarriage with the plebeians; the Athenian Eupatridai seem to have kept their yevη pure from contamination by union with lower blood; and there may well have been noble families among the Vedic Indians who intermarried only among themselves. The Germans known to Tacitus163 were divided into nobiles and ingenui, and the Anglo-Saxons into eorls and ceorls, noble and non-noble freemen.1®4 The origin of nobility need not be sought in the Vedic period proper, for it may already have existed. It may have been due to the fact that the king, whom we must regard as originally elected by the people, was as king often in close relation with, or regarded as an incarnation of, the deity;165 and that hereditary kingship would tend to increase the tradition of especially sacred blood: thus the royal family and its offshoots would be anxious to maintain the purity of their blood. In India, beside the sanctity of the king, there was the sanctity of the priest. Here we have in the family exclusiveness of king and nobles, and the similar exclusiveness of a priesthood which was not celibate, influences that make for caste, especially when accompanying the deep opposition between the general folk and the servile aborigines. Caste, once created, naturally developed in different directions. Nesfield166 was inclined to see in occupation the one ground of caste. It is hardly necessary seriously to criticize this view considered as an ultimate explanation of caste, but it is perfectly certain that gilds of workers tend to become castes. The carpenters (Tak§an), the chariot-makers (Rathakāra), the fisher¬men (Dhaivara) and others are clearly of the type of caste, and the number extends itself as time goes on. But this is not to say that caste is founded on occupation pure and simple in its first origin, or that mere difference of occupation would have produced the system of caste without the interposition of the fundamental difference between Aryan and Dāsa or śūdra blood and colour. This difference rendered increasingly important what the history of the Aryan peoples shows us to be declining, the distinction between the noble and the non-noble freemen, a distinction not of course ultimate, but one which seems to have been developed in the Aryan people before the separation of its various.branches. It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the śūdras. But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart or of Risley that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varnas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.
Is the name of a teacher, a contemporary and rival of Yājñavalkya at the court of Janaka of Videha in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, the Jaiminiya Upanisad Brāhmana, and the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
‘Disappearance,’ is the name of the place where the Sarasvatī is lost in the sands of the desert. It is mentioned in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa1 and the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. The locality is the Patiala district of the Panjab. Cf. Plakça Prāsravaṇa.
Is the name of a man referred to in the Rigveda, where Indra is called Menā, perhaps his ‘wife’ or ‘daughter.’ The same legend is alluded to in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Sadvimśa Brāhmana, and the Taittirīya Araṇyaka, but it is clear that all of these texts had no real tradition of what was referred to.
('Descendant of Vipaścit') Dārdha-jayanti ('descendant of Dr Hιajayanta') Gupta Lauhitya (‘ descendant of Lohita ’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Vaipaácita Dārdhajayanti Drdhajayanta Lauhitya, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa (iii. 42, 1).
(‘Descendant of Vipaścit ’) Dārdhajayanti (‘descendant of Drdhajayanta’) Drdhajayanta Lauhitya (‘descendant of Lohita’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Vipaścit Drdhajayanta Lauhitya, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) of the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.
‘Descendant of Vyāghrapad,’ is the patronymic of Indradyumna Bhāllaveya in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, of Budila Áśvatarāśvi in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and of Gośruti in that Upaniṣad and in the śāñkhāyana Araṇyaka. In the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa the patronymic is applied to Rāma Krātiyāteya.
Is said in the Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa to have been the son of Vasiṣtha, and to have been cast into the fire by the Viśvāmitras. According to Sadguruśiṣya, who appears to follow the śātyāyanaka, the story of śakti is as follows : Viśvāmitra, being defeated in a contest by śakti, had recourse to Jamadagni, who taught him the Sasarparī; later he revenged himself on śakti by having him burnt in the forest. The Bṛhaddevatā relates the first part of the tale only. Geldner sees in the Rigveda a description of the death struggle of śakti, but this interpretation is more than doubtful.
Is mentioned once in the Rigveda as a protágá of the Aśvins. Of him in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Jaiminiya Brāhmana is told a story how Cyavana was annoyed by the śāryātas, and appeased by the gift of Sukanyā, Saryāta's daughter, as a wife, and how Cyavana was then restored to youth by the Aśvins. He is there called Mānava (‘ descendant of Manu ’). He appears also as śaryāta Mānava, a sacrificer, in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.4
‘Descendant of śāṭya,’ is the patronymic of a teacher mentioned twice in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa1 and often in the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.2 In a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the latter work3 he is called a pupil of Jvālāyana, while in the Vamśa at the end of the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa he appears as a pupil of Bādarāyaṇa. The śātyā- yanins, his followers, are frequently mentioned in the Sūtras,4 the śātyāyani Brāhmaṇa5 and the śātyāyanaka® being also referred to in them. It has been shown by Oertel[1] that this Brāhmaṇa bore a close resemblance to, and probably belonged to the same period as, the Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa.
‘Descendant of śunaka,’ is a common patronymic. It is applied to Indrota and Svaidāyana. A śaunaka appears as a teacher of Rauhiṇāyána in the Brhadāranyaka Upaniṣad. A śaunaka-yajña, or śaunaka sacrifice, occurs in the Kausītaki Brāhmana. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad Atidhanvan śaunaka appears as a teacher. That Upaniṣad and the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmana mention a śaunaka Kāpeya who was a contemporary of Abhipratārin Kakçaseni, whose Purohita śaunaka was according to another passage of the latter Upaniṣad. In the Sūtras, the Bṛhaddevatā, etc., a śaunaka appears as a great authority on grammatical, ritual, and other matters.
(‘Descendant of Lohita’) is the name of a teacher, a pupil of Jayanta Pārāśarya, in a Vamśa (list of teachers) in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. Another man of the same name occurs in the same place as a pupil of Mitpabhūti Lauhitya.
(‘True sacrificer ’) Pauluṣi ('descendant of Puluṣa') Prāeīnayogya (If descendant of Prācīnayoga’) is the name of a teacher in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and the Jaiminiya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa. In the latter text he is said to have been the pupil of Pulusa Prāeīna- yogya.
Occurs as the name of one of the two Kāpyas (the other being Navaka) who took part in the sacrifice of the Vibhindukīyas, which is mentioned in the Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa. Ludwig thinks that the Sanakas are referred to as non-sacrificers in one passage of the Rigveda, but this is very doubtful.
‘Well-winged,’ designates a large bird of prey, the ‘eagle’ or the ‘vulture,’ in the Rigveda and later. In the passages in which it appears as an eater of carrion it must be the vulture. The Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa mentions an eagle which separates milk from water like the Kruftc. In the Rigveda the Suparṇa is said to be the child of the śyena, and is distinguished from the latter in another passage: this led Zimmer to think that the falcon is probably meant. The Atharvaveda alludes to its cry, and describes it as living in the hills.
verb (class 1 ātmanepada) (in gram.) to lower (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to annihilate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to be wanting (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to bestow (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to bind up (hair etc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to bring near (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to control (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to destroy (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to detain with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to determine (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to establish (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to extend (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to fail (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to fasten (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to fix upon (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to govern (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to grant (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to hold back (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to hold downwards (the hand) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to hold in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to hold over (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to keep back (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to keep down (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to offer (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to present (rain) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to procure (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to pronounce low i.e. with the Anudātta (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to refuse (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to regulate (as breath) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to remain (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to restrain (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to restrict (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to settle (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to stay (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to stop (intrans.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to stop (trans.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to suppress or conceal (one's nature) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to tie to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) (in Mīm. phil.) a rule or precept (laying down or specifying something otherwise optional) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
(in rhet.) a common-place (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a particular process applied to minerals (esp. to quicksilver) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
agreement (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
any act of voluntary penance or meritorious piety (esp. a lesser vow or minor observance dependent on external conditions and not so obligatory as yama) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
any conventional expression or usual comparison (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
any fixed rule or law (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
checking (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
contract (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
controlling (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
definition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
determination (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
holding back (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
keeping down (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
limitation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
lowering (as the voice) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Necessity or Law personified as a son of Dharma and Dhṛti (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
name of Viṣṇu (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
necessity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
performing five positive duties (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
preventing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
promise (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
reduction or restriction to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restraining (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restraint of the mind (the 2nd of the 8 steps of meditation in Yoga) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
vow (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
niyāmana Frequency rank 987/72933
noun (neuter) coercion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
definition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
fixed practice or rule (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
humiliation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
limitation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
precept (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restriction (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the act of subduing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
one of the Saṃskāras of mercury Frequency rank 9861/72933
adjective (in gram.) pronounced with the Anudātta (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
abstemious (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
checked (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
connected with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
constant (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
contained or joined in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
controlled (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
curbed (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
customary (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
definite (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
dependent on (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
disciplined (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
established (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
fastened (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
fixed (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
held back or in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
invariable (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
limited in number (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
positive (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
put together (hands) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
quite concentrated upon or devoted to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
regular (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restrained (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restricted (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
self-governed (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
settled (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
steady (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
suppressed (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
sure (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
temperate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
tied to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
usual (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) destiny (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
fate(sometimes personified as a goddess) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
necessity (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
religious duty or obligation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restraint (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restriction (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
self-command (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
self-restraint (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the fixed order of things (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) application (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
appointed task or duty (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
business (esp. the appointing a brother or any near kinsman to raise up issue to a deceased husband by marrying his widow) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
charge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
command
commission (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
destiny (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
employment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
fate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
injunction (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
obligation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
order (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
tying or fastening to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
use (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) appointing to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
commanding (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
directing (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
enjoining (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
impelling (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
that with which anything is tied or fastened (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the act of tying or fastening (as to the sacrificial post) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
urging (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
verb (class 10 ātmanepada) to accomplish (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to appoint or instal as (double acc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to appoint to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to cause to partake of (instr.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to coerce (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to commit or intrust anything (acc.) to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to confer or bestow upon (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to direct or compel or request or command to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to employ (reason etc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to endow or furnish with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to enjoin (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to impel (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to perform (a rite) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to put in any place or state (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to put or tie to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to set or lay (a trap or snare etc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to urge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to use (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) a ruler (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
lord (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
master (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
one who joins or fastens or attaches (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (neuter) close or personal struggle (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
fighting (esp. with fists) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
pugilistic combat (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
verb (class 7 ātmanepada) (met.) to place in front i.e. employ in the hardest work (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to appoint (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to attach to i.e. make dependent on (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to bind on (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to coerce (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to command (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to confer or intrust anything (acc.) upon or to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to direct or commission or authorize to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to direct towards (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to employ (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to enjoin (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to fix (mind or eyes upon) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to harness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to impel (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to instal (double acc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to join (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to order (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to place at (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to put in the way (with loc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to put together (esp. the hands in a certain position) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to tie or fasten to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to tie to the pole of a carriage i.e. yoke (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to trust or charge with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to use (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) charge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
command (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
injunction (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
office (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
order (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
verb (class 2 parasmaipada) to come down to (acc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to fall into (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to incur (acc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to pass over (with a carriage) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine neuter) a charioteer (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a guide or ruler (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a sailor or boatman (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
niyamana
niyāmakayantra Frequency rank 11665/72933
adjective controlling (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
defining (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restraining (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restrictive (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
img/alchemy.bmp Frequency rank 5500/72933
adjective casual (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
irregular (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
not fixed (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
not regulated (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
not unaccentuated (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
uncertain (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
uncontrolled (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
unrestricted (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) absence of control or rule or fixed order or obligation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
doubt (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
indecorous or improper conduct (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
uncertainty (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
unsettledness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) a strict rule as to applying an example to particular persons or things only (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
restriction to an individual Frequency rank 19665/72933
verb (class 1 parasmaipada) to check (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to control (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to draw in (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to keep in check (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to keep off (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to regulate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to restrain (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to withdraw (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
verb (class 7 ātmanepada) to apply (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to appoint to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to assign (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to charge or entrust with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to commit (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to decay (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to destine for (dat) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to detach (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to discharge (an arrow) at (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to disjoin (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to eat (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to employ (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to fall to pieces (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to loose (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to separate (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to unyoke (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to use (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) abandonment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
application (esp. of a verse in ritual) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
appointment to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
apportionment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
charge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
commission (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
correlation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
distribution (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
division (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
duty (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
employment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
impediment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
occupation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
relation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
separation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
task (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
use (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
verb (class 10 parasmaipada) to anything (acc.) to (dat.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to employ (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to entrust anything (acc.) to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to offer or present (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to perform (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
to use (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) application (to any pursuit etc.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
appointment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
attachment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
commission (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
connection with (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
injunction (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
precept (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Sanskrit Dictionary understands and transcodes देवनागर्-ई IAST, Harvard-Kyoto, SLP1, ITRANS. You can type in any of the Sanskrit transliteration systems you are familiar with and we will detect and convert it to IAST for the purpose of searching.
Using the Devanagari and IAST Keyboards
Click the icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter
Wildcard Searches and Exact Matching
To replace many characters us * example śakt* will give all words starting with śakt. To replace an individual character use ? for example śakt?m will give all words that have something in place of the ?. By default our search system looks for words “containing” the search keyword. To do an exact match use “” example “śaktimat” will search for this exact phrase.
Special Searches
Type sandhi: and a phrase to search for the sandhi of the two words example.
sandhi:sam yoga will search for saṃyoga
Type root: and a word to do a root search only for the word. You can also use the √ symbol, this is easily typed by typing \/ in SanskritWriter software.
Feedback
icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter